pangtongfan, thanks for your response. Apologies for the error in your name earlier.

bekalc, I'd be interested in a system that promotes risk taking, punishes major errors, acknowledges general overall difficulty, while at the same time promoting the PCS values very much. Too bad I think that's virtually impossible.

I don't think such a system is impossible. There's never going to be a perfect system, but I have a hard time thinking that we can't have a better system than we currently have. To me a better way to reward the quad guys would be to allow the quad guys to either get some kind of bonus for a quad, reward quad combinations, and perhaps to allow guys to repeat 2 quads in the long, and 2 triples in the long. All of these things would have been better than handing people 6 points for falling on a quad...

I don't want a system where one fall takes a skater out, but any skater having a 3 fall cushion is ridiculous.

In the end the final results of this particular competition were probably right, unlike Skate Canada. As outrageously overscored as Chan was he probably deserved 2nd. The only ridiculous thing was he was so close to winning. At Skate Canada he should have been 3rd or off the podium though.

Yes, this is reasonable to me. Chan should have scored about a 219 in Russia, not the 227 he received, to claim silver. Bronze in Canada would have been right too. BUTT, to be so close to being a double champion, NO, I don't agree with that AT ALL! Chan and Abbott should be in the same boat right now in terms of making the GPF with 1 silver and 1 bronze each, but that isn't the case at all, is it. Where's the fairness in that?

Tired of multiple falls getting big scores. Lambiel is frankly another one. It was ridiculous that Lambiel was so close to Olympic bronze with the combined technical programs he gave in the short and long. I adore Stephane as a skater, but I've never been so glad to see a skater turn pro.

Yeah Lambiel who messed up on over half his jumps over the two programs still half a point from pushing Takahashi who other than one major error was simply brilliant (iffy and question downgrade and flutz call aside) off the podium. Can you imagine the outcry had the result gone the other way. The current judging system and its rule, not to mention how the judges are scoring based on protocal and PCS irregardless of mistakes and performance, is treading on very thin ice. The public has already been alieanted from the sport to the point it is down to a small fan base that the sport is barely surviving on. The last thing they can afford is to have it go down further.

So, how is it the Chan with three falls gets crucified but Abbott with two falls, two step-outs and one popped jump getting the exact same PCS in his two programs (remember, he was clean in the short) doesn't get a single peep in this thread. How is it that janetfan, pangandtongfan, musekskt8r can go into childish hysterics and venemous sarcasm about Chan without mentioning that other skaters benefit from this structure in COP too?

If missed this discussion, I genuinely apologize (Also, post a link). I'm disappointed that a four fall Chan can win, truly I am. I'm glad he didn't win (I genuinely would fear for his safety at this point, given the mindless hysteria), and I'm glad that Verner can deliver two consistent performances. I'm growing to love both of Abbott's programs in a way I'm not with Chan's, and I think Chan is by far the more interesting skater. But the level of vitrol here is truly astonishing and it's really frustrating me in terms of actually having debates about what the sport can do to improve. You get the feeling if these guys saw Chan on the street, they'd give him a wedgie or something such is the level of discourse.

I think you missed quite a few names on your list of people who should own up and explain their double-standard. I would have more respect for them if they just honestly say: "I don't like Patrick Chan because of XXX reason(s)" as opposed to going through the whole brouhaha: Judges are corrupted, CoP is wrong and Evan won because he is supported by USFS oh and, the Int'l letter writing campaign to the ISU Don't get me wrong, it makes reading GS really, really entertaining because it's so far out there that it's almost comical if not for the sad reality some of these people are actually serious in what they said.

Didn't get to watch the Men's LP today and only reviewed the protocol. I am glad Chan didn't win too even though it was mostly due to his last combo being invalidated because the hysteria that would most certainly follow would have been unbearable and you never know what some extreme people may do to themselves and others.

I agree bekalc - I don't like the idea of a three (or even two fall, though that depends on technical content, of course) cushion over the field.

I think I'd be fine (without giving it MUCH thought) with a fall on a jump being worth the same as that jump w/ one less rotation with a 0 (or even -1) GOE. The problem with that as the system is currently structured is that that means horrible but landed jumps would see a huge penalty. It's rare though (one judge gave Takahashi a -3 for his 1S that he popped at NHK). Maybe a -4 level GOE strictly for elements with falls?

The judges need to start reflecting mistakes in PCS more as well. Right now they hardly reflect at all. And I agree there needs to be bigger deductions taken for falls. It is one thing to discourage risk but a risk is supposed to be a risk, so I would like to see people who fall on a quad get almost no points, as opposed to getting more than a clean triple. I would actually like to see all jumps with a fall get almost no points in addition to the extra one point deduction (maybe even bump it to 2 extra points). The underrotation calls in the past have been harsh, and the fall calls leanient. It is the underrotation calls which were the biggest thing discouraging risk.

2. gkelly and wallylutz have both taken the time to explain repeatedly that falls don't always lower PCS, as structured currently. TRUE or FALSE

Have to point out that Joe Inman, a very well known ISU judge from the U.S. posted on this topic here in person as well, using his real name. Does he also have an agenda to somehow prop up Chan for no good reason like some conspiracy theorists have been suggesting?

Jeremy doesn't deserve high PCS when he falls all over the place and is generally messy. And I know some people were watching the competition live said that Jeremy was much slower than not only Chan but also Verner in person. Menshov too. Jeremy does have nice choregraphy and transitions though but...

So, how is it the Chan with three falls gets crucified but Abbott with two falls, two step-outs and one popped jump getting the exact same PCS in his two programs (remember, he was clean in the short) doesn't get a single peep in this thread.

That either means that his clean sp should have gotten higher pcs or that his Lp when clean should score higher in pcs and now he didnt skate clean it didnt(personal opinion, I think it is the best lp of the season in terms of design and how jeremy interprets it). I dont think 7s with this program are outrageous, if he had gotten 9s I would mind.
I have read gkelly's explanation about how pcs are not influenced by falls so lets keep falls aside, although 3 falls in the program disrupt it ALOT but forget it, I m not a judge, the IN and P/E marks in Chan are too high for someone who doesnt change his tempo while skating and skates the same if it is Take 5 or Phantom. It is like he doesnt filter the program, to adjust it in his personality and own motion, he does whats on paper. For ss he can get 10, and maybe 9 for Tr , for the rest I dunno, but 9s? (this is personal opinion as well). And this high kick should go, it is there in e v e r y program of his.
Of course it is not Chan's fault. I just mind multiple falls. One can happen, when 4 happen it means the skater is not on a good day, what ss to reward there, the ones that he has left at practice?
Since he does so much in between, maybe this is the reason he cant handle a clean program and this should be alarming for his team?I cant remember when he did a clean program last time? I know people react when there is not much of choreo but jumps back to back, but when there is too much choreo and splats back to back it has the same impact if not worse. And I dont get his high GOE in the elements he didnt fall, especially his jumps look small iin distance and height (except the beauty quad he did in sp).
If we read the last page here we have ended up counting who has less falls and less Urs to find the rightful winner and this is not good.

1. People are commenting that it's ridiculous for Chan to score high PCS despite his high number of falls. TRUE or FALSE

True. It is true that people are complaining and it is true that it's ridiculous.

2. gkelly and wallylutz have both taken the time to explain repeatedly that falls don't always lower PCS, as structured currently. TRUE or FALSE

True. We have been well educated about the current rules. We want them changed.

3. People don't listen, and make the same comments. TRUE or FALSE

It is false to say that people don't listen. They listen, But they still think the rules are wrong. The part about the same comments: true. And they will keep on making them no matter how much CoP scripture is quoted from the ISU pulpit.

4. However, people are selective in whom they make the comments about. TRUE or FALSE

People complain loudest about the most egregious cases, the lesser ones do not excite so much ire.

5. People suggested that Chan's PCS should've been much lower (without much knowledge of where, how or why, of course) at Skate Canada due to his falls. TRUE or FALSE

True that people "suggested" that Chan's PCSs should have been lower. False about the "without much knowledge" part.

6. To me, if you believe that visible errors in the manner of falls and step-outs should seriously detract from his PCS, it stands to reason that an Abbott with multiple errors including falls should suffer as compared to a clean Abbott TRUE or FALSE

True.

7. That didn't happen as represented here by a direct comparison of his short and long programs. TRUE or FALSE

True. Supporting once again the contention that the CoP needs serious re-evaluation.

8. If you choose to do a direct comparison between his NHK long program (no falls, though I forget the actual content, but it was one or two popped jumps and an UR) and CoR LP, you notice his PCS staying remarkably the same (mid to high 7s). TRUE or FALSE

9. Ergo, it stands to reason that it's not so much a biased loved fest that benefits Chan solely to the exclusion of all others, but is something systemic in the rules. TRUE or FALSE

I am still disappointed. I am not confused. People focused on Chan more so than Abbott or someone else because Chan seems to have become the porter boy for this problem...

The problerm being,...well, the problem is two-fold. First, that the IJS allows a skater to fall all over the ice and still win.

And second, when fans express legitimate consternation about this they are met with contemptuous scorn by the skating in-crowd, who, noses in the air, pontificate from their ivory towers and tell all the little people to shut up and go sit in the corner with the ISU rule book.

Here is a simple way to look at it. If Chan's final point totals at the last 2 competitions had been dropped by 10-15 points would anyone have complained about his scores being too low, including those who defend them now? No. That already says it all.

Mathman, for what it's worth, I shifted into condescending tone as a consequence of the hyperbole. museksk8r pretty much dismissed my initial post, and then his follow-up was not about the content of my post, but that he thought it was stupid of me to pick on Abbott for his fourth ranked LP.

Oberseve janetfan's comment: "Bronze, schmonze." Ideally, the rules and principles would effect all skaters, not just the gold medalist. But the fact that the rules benefited the bronze medalist to the tune that if the rules change the way people want them two would then correlate to him without a medal here.

But this doesn't raise concern (that he's got a medal that by the definitions/standars they apply he'd be without).

This is okay. With Chan, who's the poster boy (I will say "porter boy" is a brilliant recontextualization of the phrase though, so well done), but it should be the principle people complain about (for what it's worth, I do believe YOU and pantongfan are complaining about the principle, and bekalc, though I didn't have an isue with his posts in the first place)

The dissapointed/confused comment was directly in response to museksk8r's post with his emoticons and "what is wrong with you" declamation.

I'm startled that you think the way people have phrased their consternation here and in the SC threads is legitmate, and sorry you feel I'm telling people to shut-up with my two posts on the subject. That wasn't my intention. I felt I saw a double standard. I still feel that way, regardless of the articulations otherwise. I'll pm you the rest of my thoughts.

True. It is true that people are complaining and it is true that it's ridiculous.

True. We have been well educated about the current rules. We want them changed.

It is false to say that people don't listen. They listen, But they still think the rules are wrong. The part about the same comments: true. And they will keep on making them no matter how much CoP scripture is quoted from the ISU pulpit.

People complain loudest about the most egregious cases, the lesser ones do not excite so much ire.

True that people "suggested" that Chan's PCSs should have been lower. False about the "without much knowledge" part.

True.

True. Supporting once again the contention that the CoP needs serious re-evaluation.

I am still disappointed. I am not confused. People focused on Chan more so than Abbott or someone else because Chan seems to have become the porter boy for this problem...

The problerm being,...well, the problem is two-fold. First, that the IJS allows a skater to fall all over the ice and still win.

And second, when fans express legitimate consternation about this they are met with contemptuous scorn by the skating in-crowd, who, noses in the air, pontificate from their ivory towers and tell all the little people to shut up and go sit in the corner with the ISU rule book.

Mathman, this may be my favorite post by you, possibly ever! I agree on all points!

Sorry, I didn't mean to tee off on you personally. (But who can resist a ten question true or false test? )

I do think, though, that the skating establishment has become so enamored with refining rule number 32.9, paragraph (a), subsection (iii) -- rather like Sheldon's "roommate agreement" with Leonard on the Big Bang Theory, if you get/watch that show -- that they have forgotten what a skating competition is all about. And also that they dismiss the opinions of the lesser folk, even as they expect these same folk to pick up the tab for lunch.